Search form

You are here

Punching Methods - Why?

I would love to know why doe we practice "Karate Punching" when we go into Kumite (especially when practicing Knock Down Karate and K-1 etc) do we not punch like this. I find it a waste of time learning to "punch" like this then when you have to punch you all instinctively punch like a Boxer"

The "karate punch" is a movement consisting of a pulling motion and a thrusting motion. It can be used as a punch, but it is not limited to mere punching. You can snap a neck or turn the opponent 180 degree by applying this movement to the shoulders.

However when used for punching you don't have to forget the use of the second hand. While pulling in and twisting the opponents arm you put him of ballance, minimizing his chance to successfully attack you. Ever tried that when being of ballance? So the need for protecting the head will probably not arise. You definitly don't punch this way at longer distances.

When doing the "boxing punch" you still rotate the fist during the thrusting motion, just as you do in the "karate punch" even if this rotation is not as big as in the "karate punch". So the thrusting movement ist not that different.

This is something I wrestled with for years. And actually Iain's work really helped cement my views into a cohesive whole despite the seemingly disparate methods. The style of Karate I do has a kyokushin base but takes training methods and some techniques from Thai so it was a particular problem for me.

I posted a response to this in Kykushin4life so if it's not against the TOS here I'll just post that....

What's helped me resolve the issue is looking at what each style is trying to achieve with their punching and what they are allowed to do while doing so.

Boxing for me represents "unnattached hitting". You are not allowed to grab and hit in boxing (dirty boxing as it's called in MMA) and in fact wear big gloves that can prevent you from doing so. As such boxing punches stress defensive positioning (hand up to face) while punching because the other guys hands will also be punching back. By the face is the best place for it to be in that ruleset.

I think that the Karate punch represents "attached hitting". Attached hitting seems to be what is recorded in the kata. You grab the opponent with one hand (which becomes hikite) and strike with the other. Because Karateka didn't wear gloves (and also trained to fight people in clothing) grabbing becomes a good option. When you are grabbing someone (by the lapel, hair, wrist etc) you no longer need the hand guarding the face as much (in fact you can't put it near your face as it's busy).

It becomes a closer range type of punch and you are controlling the opponent by standing grappling manipulation rather than superior defensive positioning.

Essentially when at close gripping/ clinch range (the range that seems to be recorded in kata) a hand up by your chin (like in boxing) is a hand that is being wasted as an offensive tool (a dead hand if you will).

When clinch fighting (grabbing, pulling, brawling) both hands should be working. In fact that's exactly what we see in MMA. Fighters clinched with both hands working, where the hands end up in all sorts of positions depending on what's needed. They then often break the clinch and revert to boxing punches where one hand is guarding as that is better at that point.

It doesn't have to be an either/or scenario when you look at the two different punching styles like that.

What's happened is that Karate exponents took one type of punch (the grabbing close range clinch striking from the kata) isolated it into kihon, lost the link to close range fighting because realistic bunkai was not passed on and then applied it in unrealistic ippon kumite based on Kendo rather than what was recorded in kata.

So when the Karateka came to compete in full contact they quite rightly ascertained that the punches they had (long linear hikite punches) were inferior to boxing punches because for that style of fighting they WERE inferior.

To my mind they are different tools. Closely related for sure but designed to used in a different way, at a slightly different range and with different amounts of support from the rest of the body.

Definitely a good post. It's another way of emphasising the need to have clearly defined goals in your training/sport/whatever. The goal or aim of boxing is quite different from that of self protection oriented karate. Boxing is a 'square go' with a clearly defined rule set and equipment. SPO karate is very different. We musn't confuse the two because they have superficial similarities, i.e. physical confrontation.

The way someone punches and guards/covers effectively is quite different when your hands are taped up and wearing HUGE boxing gloves than when they're bare knuckle. Try covering your face with a clenched fist whilst letting your opponent hit you full contact with their bare knuckled closed fist. It feels a lot different and is much less effective than when you're both wearing big gloves.

Look at the old time bare knuckle fighters. I used to look at that long armed guard they had then as being a bit 'funny', 'amusing' or 'quaint' even. Perhaps a sign of the naivety of a sport in its infancy. Having tried the training I suggested in the paragraph above, I now look at it as a very good way of stopping the other bloke smacking their fist or MY fist into my face.

"for me there are no karate punches or boxing punches." Yes, I agree with that absolutely; also with the statement "What's helped me resolve the issue is looking at what each style is trying to achieve with their punching and what they are allowed to do while doing so." Or I guess I would say that I believe such things DO exist in technical training (even 'applied technical training'), but they do NOT exist in what I call "adaptation training". What exists at that level (or maybe in that categoric 'zone' of training, because it is not hierarchical, white belts can and should do such exercises too), and which I beleive is a necessary but often overlooked aspect of training, is simply the idea: 'connect fist with jaw' (or whatever target). And in reality, these two 'different' methods each offer a piece of the same combative puzzle...

So my opinion would be that the difference you perceive Black Tiger is one of method... And what is a method? simply a way of doing something, typically FOR A DESIGNATED PURPOSE. (That part is hugely important). But what happnes is, preconceptions about 'best' method(s), i.e. the kind that would be useful in "any" and "all" contexts start to obscure the fact that each of these different methods offer DIFFERENT advantages and disadvantages. Also, that the study of one does not preclude the study of the other.

But what is best for 'real' fighting?!? That's the $64,000 conundrum that so frequently comes up... And my position would be that 'boxing' punches (as illustrated) might be less useful in a 'real' Kyokushin karate tournament. Likewise the Kyokushin method illlustrated would probably not work so well in a 'real' boxing tournament.

And the final obfuscation which is overlooked by many is that each of these ILLUSTRATIONS is just as much what I call 'fantasy fighting' as the other, i.e. they are each illustrations of **UNAPPLIED** ways of USING your body to generate impact power WITH your body (i.e. "make other guy collide hard with Ug's fist"). And yes, you might see a 'literal' translation of either of those motions in the chaos of a street fight... probably once. But my argument would be that in the choas of a 'real-real' encnounter, replete with hair pulling, off balancing, headlocking, choking, kneeing, biting, scratching, and the like, you will not see much of either of them.

It's a fantasy to believe (and I'm not accusing you of it, I mean generally) that how we 'train' for violence in the safety of the dojo is how it will go down. Real fights are chaotic, and if you really want to prepare for that, my belief is that you have to simulate ***THAT*** chaos as a regular part of training, because it changes everything. And IN that chaos, "pure" technique rarely, if ever comes out. It merely 'Informs' what is happening.

So, yes, you ARE open on the high line with karate punching. That would be a DISADVANTAGE of that method. What then are its advantages? If you think about it I'm sure you will start to see, and many of them have already been enumerated here.

Then, so too, with the boxing.. what are the disadvantages and advantages of THAT method? What assumptions are inherent to and undelying both? Where and WHY are the different? HOW does each method 'change' when you take away the 'rules' of the context it was designed to be used in? What happens to the motions when you add different constraints, like weapons?

And all that being said, now I will give you the 'direct answer' to your question. Personally, I have come to start people with the 'boxing method' by which I mean that I place emphasis on striking while from a 'mobile platform' (by which I am referring more to footwork than the actual sturcture of the punch); also that I 'encourage' the back heel to lift and allow a slightly deeper hip turn. But I have noticed with students that they still make 'mistakes': rolling over the toes completely and losing power, 'floating' the rear foot and losing power, opening the shoulder too wide in an effort to 'drive the turn', torquing the body too much. So this past week, guess what I was showing them as a counter point? Basic concepts of gyaku tsuki in zen kustsu dachi-- a different method to emphasize the mistakes and disadvantages of their current assumptions and practices.

Incidentally, I also teach "hockey fighting" as a method of punching to my students... i.e. how to a) deal with someone who is biologically motivated to 'attach' to you such that they can both keep you in range to hit, and keep you off balance to repel YOUR hits, and b) how to do the same to your opponent when they try to grab you, or when you are in the middle of the clinch and pulled or pushed off balance, or for when you find yourself falling or your throw gets countered and you instinctively grab hold of the other guy just to try and keep your feet. Or maybe for those situations where you are simply 'having a bad day' and you happen to fall back onto your own playground tactics yourself. That method is 'none of the above'.

Now, do we practice a 'linework' of hockey fighting? No. But we regularly defend against that as a common HAV. So, I have two choices as an instructor. I can have my guys pantomime 'bad' hokcey fighting, or I can let them practice it so that they get good at it.. i.e., they don't just roll over for someone who applies the first clear of a grip, they roll with it, reattach, change the angle, push and shove ion an effort to do so, all of which I would argue irmpoves thier clinching/ trapping/ barrier negation/ S/R/R, and ability to react under 'real' pressure.

Individual methods are just different flavors of the same thing, at least that is what they have become to me. Nothing is really, truly a waste of time-- ASSUMING you grow from the experience (although one might argue a case for certain 'training efficiencies'). Half of what learning what you 'know' is, is learning to know what you don't know. And the other half is making your own decisions about what YOU personally find to be experientially "true", "right", "better", and what not for your own training... Keep asking questions!

…. When clinch fighting (grabbing, pulling, brawling) both hands should be working. In fact that's exactly what we see in MMA. Fighters clinched with both hands working, where the hands end up in all sorts of positions depending on what's needed. They then often break the clinch and revert to boxing punches where one hand is guarding as that is better at that point …

… It doesn't have to be an either/or scenario when you look at the two different punching styles like that …

…To my mind they are different tools. Closely related for sure but designed to used in a different way, at a slightly different range and with different amounts of support from the rest of the body.

Great post that I think draws out the distinction cleanly and simply. If you can use the non-striking hand to control the enemy, ascertain their position in the maelstrom of conflict through proprioception, clear a path to the target etc, then the hand is put to better use by being active in those ways rather than held in passive guard … and we see that a lot in kata due to the kind of conflict kata was put together to address.

I really like the terms “attached hitting” and “unattached hitting” as opposed to “karate punches” and “boxing punches”. I make use of attached and unattached in training and teaching and to my way of thinking both are “karate punches” (because that is the system I practise); which type was used predominately would, as always, depend on context.

Boxing for me represents "unnattached hitting". You are not allowed to grab and hit in boxing (dirty boxing as it's called in MMA) and in fact wear big gloves that can prevent you from doing so. As such boxing punches stress defensive positioning (hand up to face) while punching because the other guys hands will also be punching back. By the face is the best place for it to be in that ruleset.

I think that the Karate punch represents "attached hitting". Attached hitting seems to be what is recorded in the kata. You grab the opponent with one hand (which becomes hikite) and strike with the other. Because Karateka didn't wear gloves (and also trained to fight people in clothing) grabbing becomes a good option. When you are grabbing someone (by the lapel, hair, wrist etc) you no longer need the hand guarding the face as much (in fact you can't put it near your face as it's busy).

It becomes a closer range type of punch and you are controlling the opponent by standing grappling manipulation rather than superior defensive positioning.

Essentially when at close gripping/ clinch range (the range that seems to be recorded in kata) a hand up by your chin (like in boxing) is a hand that is being wasted as an offensive tool (a dead hand if you will).

When clinch fighting (grabbing, pulling, brawling) both hands should be working. In fact that's exactly what we see in MMA. Fighters clinched with both hands working, where the hands end up in all sorts of positions depending on what's needed. They then often break the clinch and revert to boxing punches where one hand is guarding as that is better at that point.

I agree with this and I make the distinction by having pre-kata punching and in-kata punching.

Pre-Kata punching is the "unattached punching" mentioned above. I think that it is alot easier to escape safely if we can stay unattached with the enemy. (something I began to think about after an Al Peasland seminar, where he said "boxing style" punches are his first set of attacks after the pre-emptive strike)

In-Kata punching is the "attached punching" mentioned above. As no surprise this is when the distance is a lot closer and we are attached to the opponent. Here we can use the hikite and locating methods the kata punches teach (hence no "boxing style" punches found if kata.

Of course as I have seperated them by ranges, you can switch between the two whenever it is necessary and advantageous. Iain and PA I think both made the point that its not Boxing styel of Karate Style, but merely two different sets of skills that should be used when needed and work well together.

F = MxA, meaning the the force of your punch equals the amount of your bodyweight and the speed you are able to loead into it. For the boxers the force becomes from rotation of the upper body and the projectin requires raised shoulders. For karateka the energy comes from rotation of hips and lower body and projection requires lowered shoulders.

This of course is broad generalization, karatekas rotate shoulders and boxers their rotate hips, but bear with me here.

As said boxing punch has definite advantages: Its intuitive and quick to teach, you can launch rapid combinations of punches and have strikes which are not available in karate like uppercuts and hooks. You do not need to anchor yourself to the ground and are therefore more mobile.

However

There are limits and you reach them pretty quickly, there is only so much mass that you can gain on your upper torso before it starts to show on your waist too , your strenght is proportional to your muscle and the counterforce from the punch (Newtons third law here) has nowhere to go except joints on your shoulders. Once you shoulders go, and they will in time, there goes your punch.

Karate punches are similar to kendo strikes which means the counterforce is directed to the ground, you use more of your body mass to the rotation and hence generate more powerfull punch and the muscle control that comes from training means that you are able to throw your meanest punch in your eighties.

</lecture mode>

Practise both, use whichever is appropriate at the moment the need arises.

One thing I've come to realise is how punching from the hip is the wrong way to look at it. You punch from the the hip in Karate because the previous technique brought your hand there when you used hikite. In reality you punch from where your hand is when there's an opening for it to hit someone. I saw an MMA bout the other day where one guy was pulled onto the floor. He posted a hand on the mat to stop himself being rolled, regained his base and then used the posting hand to punch with as he lifted it from the floor. That's punching and it wasn't from the hip or a guard!

You see it in boxing too. A guy has an underhook, stifling the other guys arms. As he pulls it out to disengage he drives an uppercut up the middle. Again, not really from a guard at all.

Interestingly, if you look at Filipino Panantukan (and even certain systems of silat), you tend to see a 'blend' of both methods... i.e. a lot of the attached hitting of karate with the unattached hitting of boxing, and with the added element of a connection to trapping. For instance, the 'pluto punch' Demonstrated by Victor DeThours silat system is essentially a heavily emphasized boxing 'overhand'. (Or, aone could say a boxing overhand is a slightly deemphasized version of a silat punch, take your pick ).

The thing (I bleieve) to understand about boxing is that it is a system that focuses on striking with the FIST. So, accordingly, it neglects the elbows, forearms, palms, and the like-- along with the associated 'body contours' or targets that those weapons best 'fit'-- in favor of targets and angles that 'work' for a context where the only allowable method of fighting is... yep, striking with the fist. That doesn't 'negate' its effectiveness for that context, or make it superior/inferior to anything; it just needs to be understood in its context for what it is.

These days, I have switched to teaching from what I call a "mechanic centric" perspective focused more on what the body is doing, as oppossed to the hand. i.e.: the UNDERLYING mechanical body action for a snappy 'boxing jab' is essentially the same 'linear thrust' and shoulder roll that makes a finger jab effective; a boxing 'hook' employs essentially the same positioning and body turning as a horizontal elbow; ibid for the uppercut and upward elbow, etc. (Admitedly, the ranges can be slightly different depending on how much one 'opens up' the punching).

What I have found is male students, especially, enter our program thinking they already 'know' how to punch, and therefore whatever you are showing them is merely 'adding to' their 'already established' arsenal. And as any instructors out there know, in reality, however, the bad habits formed in 10 or 20 years of 'doing it wrong' mechanically are frequently hard to overwrite. I have found that by teaching 'striking' INITIALLY as an open handed practice (i.e. substituting a finger jab for the boxing 'jab', a palm heel for the 'cross', an elbow for the 'hook', etc.) and teaching from a proper mechanical perspective focused on the feet, hips, shoulders, etc. 'confounds' the body enough that actual new motor learning can occur.

So, by the time we 'get' to actual 'punching', slightly later in our program, students have already developed 1) good mobility and the ability to generate power 'from mobility' (as opposed to from a ZKD while walking staright up and down the floor) and 2) good 'mechanics' that underly those somehwat structurally weaker (in terms of pure impact damage) and more precise body weapons. So, they have learned the supporting 'body attributes' of good punching, and now have the option of simply 'substituting' the fist.

Since I don't presently train people for athletic contexts, this also facilitates a connection to so called 'dirty boxing' mixing in hammer fists, elbows and the like fluently with more 'orthodox' MOQ boxing.

Personally when we begin our striking training, we start with 'Attached Striking' and the Hockey fight method. It might just be because I'm in Toronto, and hockey is rampant here. I like the idea of clinch first, and when that is broken, and then you revert to unattached striking. Again, this preference now for me might just be because I spent the youth of my Karate training competing in sport tournaments, and now am enjoying the complete opposite of that.

The interesting thing I found is when we begin to look at old-time pugilism (pre-Queensbury rules) where other types of hitting were allowed and common, those boxers also had a lower guard and wider stance, wilder swings called for a different kind of defence.( Mark Hatmaker has a great series of books and instructionals) Another good example in MMA is Chuck Liddell. He had great power strikes, a wider stance to defend against takedowns, and a lower guard (and I believe he came from a K1 background, or karate?). The defence postures you take are in a direct relation to the distance between you and your opponent. As you get closer, the arms go higher as the likely hood of needing a head defence increases along with the increased chance that your opponent will attach to you to target your head with greater accuracy. But with distance, and your opponents ability to kick, or shoot for the legs, your arms need to have the ability to provide a broader defence spectrum, not just the duck & cover for the head boxing punches.

Another thing that occurred to me this afternoon was to ask myself what you generally see when 'karate' people proceed to free-motion unattached hitting of eachother (i.e. "point sparring") To my read, generally this looks to me a lot more like "boxing", or the kick boxing it eventually gave birth to.

Just a quick note and observation that I have noticed; yes it is true that the standard karate punch may seem too ridged and almost robotic if not placed in context with the hikite. However, if we break down some of the movements of kihon; (Lets just take gedan uke “down block”) in our dojo when we teach beginners down block we tell them to cross their centerline at a slight upwards angle with a closed fist as they place their hand near their ear. If we look at that particular set up it can also be seen as a right or left cross (Depending on which hand is being used) which is a punch found very common to boxing. I think often times we get trapped in to focusing on the end result of any given technique and forget to examine all the mechanics of it to find the other possibilities of that technique.

I must say That All techniques come from the floor not just the hip, no matter what the position of the strike.

Just as a "Matter of Fact" (Laboratory Conditions) Its was proven that the "Boxing Punch" was the hardest of them all

This is from the Show Fight Science, I am sure you all remember it. I don't have the exact sequence of everyone from the various Martial Arts Styles punching, but the Boxer WAS higher than the next closest!!!